Policies
POLICIES
ACADEMIC GRIEVANCES
Policy
It is the policy of the Graduate School to address all
grievances of an academic nature filed by enrolled
graduate students. Graduate student grievances
are heard by the Graduate Academic Grievance
Committee.
Grievances must be filed with the Graduate School
within 60 days of the alleged act and may involve
the following:
a. violations of program, department, college, or
Graduate School policies related to final grades in
courses or research (891 or 991);
b. violations of program, department, college, or
Graduate School policies related to the completion of any academic requirement including theses
and dissertations, oral or written comprehensive
examinations;
c. graduate student assistantship employment
including allegations that offers of assistantship
appointments made during recruiting not honored
after enrollment.
The Graduate Academic Grievance Committee
will not hear allegations of discrimination based on
age, color, disability, gender, national origin, race,
religion, sexual orientation, or veteran’s status. All
such allegations or complaints should be submitted
to the Office of Access and Equity. The Graduate
School will promptly refer any such complaints
received to the Office of Access and Equity.
son subcommittees, three faculty and two graduate
students, appointed by the chair of the Graduate
Academic Grievance Committee as cases are
received from the IGRB. The Graduate Academic
Grievance Committee will only hold hearings on
cases referred to it by the IGRB.
b. The Initial Grievance Review Board (IGRB)
is responsible for determining which grievances
will go forward to the Graduate Academic Grievance Committee. The IGRB is comprised of one
faculty representative from each of the colleges,
appointed for one-year terms. In addition, there is
one graduate student representative on the IGRB,
appointed for a one-year term. The members of the
Initial Grievance Review Board are selected by and
from the membership of the Graduate Academic
Grievance Committee. The IGRB will select a
faculty member to serve as its chair. Decisions will
be made by majority vote.
Meetings of the Committee
The Graduate Academic Grievance Committee
meets throughout the year, including during the
summer, to dispense expeditiously with all grievances brought before it.
Procedures and Rules Governing
Academic Grievances
Procedures for Students Filing a Complaint
At any time prior to filing a grievance, the student
may consult with the University ombudsman
charged with mediation in cases involving graduate students.
Committee Structure
1. Any student wishing to file a complaint must
first make every attempt to resolve it within the
college. The student must first take the complaint
to the faculty or staff member(s) involved. If no
resolution can be reached, the student should
request assistance from the department chair and
the dean of the college.
Faculty representatives are selected by their colleges and serve three-year staggered terms. Student
representatives on the committee are selected and
approved by the Graduate Student Government
through an application and interview process in
the spring semester. Students serve one-year terms.
No member of the Graduate Academic Grievance
Committee may simultaneously be a member of
the undergraduate academic grievance committee,
nor may they be members of the undergraduate
or graduate academic integrity committees. The
selection of faculty and student membership on
the Graduate Academic Grievance Committee will
occur in April of each year as needed.
2. If the grievance remains unresolved, the student
may file the complaint with the Graduate School.
The student must first meet with the associate dean
of the Graduate School charged with oversight of
the Graduate Academic Grievance Committee.
The associate dean will describe the grievance process to the student. If the student wishes to proceed
with the grievance, the associate dean will provide
the student with Graduate School Form GSg-A
Request to File a Grievance, which will enable the
student to provide a written statement detailing
the grievance and his/her attempts to resolve it at
the college level by documenting (a) the dates of
consultations at the college level, (b) the names of
those persons consulted, and (c) the signature of the
collegiate dean attesting that no resolution could be
reached. The student must return the fully executed
FORM GSg-A to the Graduate School within 30
days of receipt from the associate dean. Students
who fail to file the grievance within this timeframe
forfeit their opportunity to proceed.
The Graduate Academic Grievance Committee
is a 20-person committee from which a six-person
panel, the Initial Grievance Review Board (IGRB),
is selected. The Graduate Academic Grievance
Committee consists of 15 faculty representatives,
three from each college, and five student representatives, preferably one from each college.
The chair of the Graduate Academic Grievance
Committee will be a faculty member selected by the
membership of the committee at its first meeting.
a. The Graduate Academic Grievance Committee is responsible for hearing student grievances
forwarded to it by the IGRB, proposing resolutions,
and, in the case of appeal, preparing the file and
forwarding recommendations to the dean of the
Graduate School. Grievances are heard by five-per-
The student may seek external counsel (an advisor,
an attorney, etc.) to assist with preparation of materials to submit to the Academic Grievance Committee. The student may request such individual
accompany him/her to the hearing and may wish to
proceed to prepare for this event. Questions concern-
31
ing possible impacts on the student’s graduate status
should he/she not be successful in the grievance may
be discussed at this time with the associate dean of
the Graduate School.
Procedures for the Initial Grievance Review
Board (IGRB)
1. An associate or assistant dean (different from the
associate dean above providing assistance to the student filing the grievance) of the Graduate School will
serve in an advisory role to the Graduate Academic
Grievance Committee and IGRB, if needed.
2. The chair of the Initial Grievance Review Board
(IGRB) will be provided a copy of the grievance
(Form GSg-A), at which time he/she will convene
the IGRB to review the grievance. The Graduate School will retain the original copy of Form
GSg-A.
3. The IGRB will determine, by majority vote, if
the complaint constitutes a grievance as defined
by the grievance policy above, rendering it either
nongrievable or grievable.
(a) Nongrievable—If the IGRB finds the complaint to be nongrievable, the IGRB will execute
its portion of Form GSg-A, explaining its reasoning
for its determination, and return the case to the
associate dean with oversight of academic grievances. The associate dean will notify the student
of the IGRB’s decision. The student may appeal
this determination to the dean of the Graduate
School within ten days by requesting a review of the
complaint. The student’s request to the dean must
provide a convincing rationale for the appeal. This
appeal must be in writing and will be attached to
Form GSg-A. The dean of the Graduate School may
elect to uphold the IGRB’s decision or forward the
case to the Academic Grievance Committee for a
hearing. If the dean of the Graduate School upholds
the decision of the IGRB (that the case is nongrievable), the Graduate School will notify the student
and the University will take no further action. The
associate dean of the Graduate School will notify
all parties involved in the case of decisions of the
IGRB and results of any appeal, including the chair
of the Graduate Academic Grievance Committee,
the student, and all department faculty and staff
reported on Form GSg-A.
(b) Grievable—If the IGRB finds the complaint
to be grievable, the IGRB will forward the case,
through the associate dean of the Graduate School,
to the chair of the Graduate Academic Grievance
Committee, who in turn will appoint the subcommittee to hear the case.
Procedures for the Academic
Grievance Committee
1. In the case that the IGRB recommends that
the grievance be heard by the Graduate Academic
Grievance Committee, hereafter referred to as the
committee, the chair of the committee will appoint
a subcommittee of five individuals (three faculty
and two graduate students) to hear the case. The
subcommittee members should be from departments
different from the student filing the grievance and
the faculty member against whom the grievance is
filed. The subcommittee will select its chair and
notify the associate dean of the Graduate School.
Policies
The chair must be a member of the faculty. (The
chair of the committee may choose to serve as one of
the faculty representatives to the subcommittee.)
2. A copy of the recommendation of the IGRB,
and all supporting documents related to the case,
will be returned by the chair of the IGRB to the
associate dean of the Graduate School who, in turn,
will provide the materials to the subcommittee
chosen to hear the case.
3. Prior to convening the hearing, the chair of the
subcommittee will contact the student who has filed
the grievance as well as the faculty member against
whom the grievance has been filed. The chair of
the subcommittee will provide copies of the grievance to both parties, answer procedural questions
concerning the hearing that the parties have, and
also ask each party if they have submitted all written documentation to the committee. If additional
written materials are received prior to the hearing,
the chair of the subcommittee will distribute copies
to all subcommittee members and to all parties to
the grievance.
4. The hearing on the grievance will be informal
and will be closed. The chair will take whatever
action is necessary to ensure an equitable, orderly,
and expeditious hearing. All parties to the grievance will be given an opportunity to be heard.
In addition, the chair may request the presence
of any other person who can supply information
pertinent to the grievance. If any witness is unable to be present at the hearing, the chair may,
at his/her discretion, accept a written statement
from that witness to be presented at the hearing.
Witnesses will not be present during the hearing
except when they are called to speak before the
subcommittee. The parties will be permitted to
question all individuals who present information,
including each other. The parties will be accorded
the right to bring to the hearing one individual
of their own choice to provide counsel; however,
counsel will not be permitted to participate in the
proceedings. Attendance at hearings is limited to
designated participants.
5. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the subcommittee will reach, by majority vote, a recommended
resolution to the grievance. The subcommittee
chair will then formulate the findings in writing.
Copies of the written findings and recommended
resolution will be forwarded via return receipt-certified mail to the student filing the grievance. A copy
will be delivered to the faculty member as well. If
the faculty member’s office is on campus, the copy
may be hand-delivered. If the faculty member’s
office is off campus, the copy will be sent via returnreceipt certified mail. Each party will be asked to
indicate acceptance of the recommended resolution
by signing and returning the letter within 14 working days of its date to the Graduate School. Failure
to respond within 14 working days will constitute
acceptance.
6. If all parties to the grievance accept the resolution recommended by the subcommittee, the matter
of the grievance will be considered closed. The associate dean of the Graduate School will notify all
involved individuals, including the IGRB and the
committee that the case is resolved. The associate
dean of the Graduate School will ensure that the
resolution is effected and will notify the University
registrar, if needed.
7. If either party fails to accept the recommended
resolution to the case, all materials will be referred
to the dean of the Graduate School. When grievances are referred in this manner, the dean of the
Graduate School will make the final decision. The
associate dean of the Graduate School will notify
all parties included on Form GSg-A of the decision
of the dean and will ensure that the resolution is
effected, including notification to the University
registrar, if needed.
8. Should a grievance be filed against the dean of
the Graduate School in his/her capacity as a member of the faculty, the substitution of the provost of
the University must be made for student wishing to
appeal the finding of the hearing panel.
9. To the extent permitted by law, all records
and discussions relevant to the grievance will be
held in confidence; however, information will be
available to succeeding chairs of the Committee.
The Graduate School will retain one complete file
of each grievance in a locked file for the required
length of time in accordance with state guidelines
on retention of academic materials. At the conclusion of the case, materials provided to individual
members of the Academic Grievance Committee
will be returned to the associate dean for shredding.
10. The committee will make every reasonable
effort to resolve each grievance as expeditiously as
possible.
11. These policies and procedures can be changed
by recommendation from the membership of the
Academic Grievance Committee with approval of
the Graduate Advisory Committee, the Graduate
Council, and the Provost’s Academic Council. Such
changes will not affect any case under consideration
at the time of the change.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
See Academic Integrity on page 27.
ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT
FOR FORMER GRADUATE
STUDENTS
It is possible that an act of academic misconduct
will remain undiscovered until after a degree is
awarded. In such a case, Clemson University reserves the right to revoke any degree based on new
revelations about scholarly issues including, but
not restricted to, admission credentials, all forms
of coursework, research, theses, dissertations, or
other final projects.
I. Submission of Fraudulent Admissions
Credentials
Submission of fraudulent admissions credentials in
the student’s application or any other documents
submitted for admission to Clemson University may
result in initiation of action under the Policy and
Procedure on Revocation of Academic Degrees as
stated on page 36.
II. Academic Dishonesty in Coursework
A. In the event that the act is alleged to have
occurred within the context of a course and is
consistent with the general definition of academic
misconduct presented above, the procedures for
violations of academic integrity will apply except
for academic misconduct listed in III below.
32
B. If the resulting penalty is either the assignment
of a grade of D or F in a required graduate course,
or the issuance of any grade that causes the student
not to possess a cumulative B average in both
graduate courses and in all courses, action under the
Policy and Procedures on Revocation of Academic
Degrees may be initiated.
III. Falsification of Data and Plagiarism in Theses,
Dissertations, or Other Final Projects
Data falsification, plagiarism, and other serious acts
of academic misconduct in a thesis, dissertation, or
other final project will result in initiation of action
under the Policy and Procedure on Revocation of
Academic Degrees.
ACADEMIC RESEARCH
Policy on Research Ethics
I. Preamble
Research institutions have a critical responsibility
to provide an environment that promotes integrity,
while at the same time encouraging openness and
creativity among scholars. Care must be taken to
ensure that honest error and ambiguities of interpretation of scholarly activities are distinguishable
from outright misconduct. To address all allegations
of fraud or misconduct, definitions, policies, and
procedures must be in place to facilitate and guide
such processes.
This policy is applicable to all researchers associated with Clemson University, including faculty,
students, and staff. If charges are brought against
nonfaculty members of Clemson University, appropriate substitutions should be made for the role of
the Faculty Senate officers and dean. If charges are
brought against a former student that could result
in the student’s degree being revoked, those charges
should be processed through the University’s Policy
and Procedure on Revocation of Academic Degrees
rather than through this policy.
II. Definitions
A. Research: Research is used in a general sense (as
opposed to scientific research) to yield a policy applicable to all academic disciplines in the University.
B. Misconduct: Dishonest deviation from accepted
practices in conducting research activities; fraudulent
failure to comply with university, regulatory, and funding agencies requirements affecting specific aspects of
the conduct of research. This definition includes
Falsification of data—ranging from falsification
or intentional misrepresentation of methods, materials, or results to selective reporting of findings,
such as the purposeful omission of conflicting data
with the intent to manipulate the results;
Plagiarism—representation of borrowed work
as one’s own;
Misappropriation of others’ ideas—the unauthorized and intentionally dishonest use of
privileged information (such as that which might be
gained during peer, paper, or grant reviews), however obtained; malicious and public misrepresentation
of a colleague’s ethical research behavior; conflicts
of interest that could influence the researcher’s
decisions or conclusions or which could provide
unfair gain to the researcher; other misuse of position as researcher for personal gain; exploitation
(such as failure to credit work, misrepresentation
Policies
of a research relationship, etc.) of students, or other
persons, for research purposes.
This definition does not include non-fraudulent
failure or inadequacy of performance, incompetence, or honest error; non-fraudulent breaches
of contracts; employment discrimination, sexual
harassment, violation of human subjects policy or
animal welfare policy; or other forms of misconduct
that are the concerns of different, distinctive administrative policies.
C. Inquiry: Expeditious gathering and review of
information to determine if an investigation is warranted. This is not a formal hearing, but a process designed to separate frivolous, unjustified, or mistaken
allegation from facts regarding the incident.
D. Investigation: A formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if an instance
of misconduct has occurred.
E. Disposition: The Committee of Investigation shall
determine only whether a breach of ethics has occurred and will not make recommendations relative
to the nature or severity of the action to be taken.
If the investigation committee finds that the complaint was intentionally dishonest and malicious,
the committee can recommend action against the
accuser.
In the event that allegations are not confirmed,
the institution shall make full efforts to restore the
reputation of the accused; the accused’s recommendations to accomplish this should be accommodated
insofar as is possible.
III. Procedures
A. Overall Structure: An allegation or complaint
involving the possibility of misconduct can be raised
by anyone. The allegation should be made in writing to the Faculty Senate president in a confidential
manner. Accusations must be signed.
Charges must be filed within seven years of the
date on which the event in question occurred. If
the date of limitation is in question, the Faculty
Senate president, the chair of the Faculty Senate
Research Committee, and the vice president for
research shall determine whether the given event
occurred within the specified time limit.
The Faculty Senate president and the chair of the
Faculty Senate Research Committee should accept
the accusation only after they are satisfied that its
substance complies with this policy’s definition of
“misconduct.” At this time, and at their discretion,
they may consult with the vice president for research
relative to the alleged research ethics violation.
A meeting should be scheduled to occur within 20
calendar days following acceptance of the accusation for the accused to appear before the president
of the Faculty Senate and the chair of the Faculty
Senate Research Committee for the purpose of
hearing the charge(s) and being informed of who
authored the charges. The accused will be asked to
plead “guilty” or “not guilty” to each charge. If the
accused pleads “guilty,” the president of the Faculty
Senate will report the facts to the vice president for
research, who will, within 90 calendar days, prepare
a report for the provost.
If the accused pleads “not guilty,” or if the accused
refuses to respond, an inquiry, the first step of the
review process, should result. The vice president
for research should be notified of the inquiry. In
the inquiry state, factual information is gathered
and expeditiously reviewed to determine if an investigation of the charge is warranted. An inquiry
is not a formal hearing; it is designed to separate
allegations deserving of further investigation from
frivolous, unjustified, or clearly mistaken allegations. The vice president for research will inform
the accuser of the disposition at the conclusion of
the investigation stage.
During the initial meeting with the accused for
the purpose of presenting charges, only the Faculty
Senate president, the chair of the Faculty Senate
Research Committee, and the accused with his/her
lawyer, if desired, may be present. During hearings by
the Committee of Inquiry or the Committee of Investigation, only duly appointed members of the given
committee and the committee’s invited witnesses
with his/her lawyer, if desired, may be present.
B. Inquiry: The vice president for research and
the Faculty Senate president will appoint, within
ten calendar days of a response of “not guilty” to
charges by the accused, a Committee of Inquiry
of three faculty members with one individual appointed as chair.
For any specific allegation or set of allegations, the
Committee of Inquiry will determine if an investigation is warranted. The Committee of Inquiry will
submit a written report to the vice president for
research and the Faculty Senate president within
30 calendar days of the formation of the Committee of Inquiry.
C. Investigation: If the Committee of Inquiry so
recommends, the vice president for research and
the Faculty Senate president will appoint within
20 calendar days a Committee of Investigation
consisting of five faculty members, other than those
serving on the Committee of Inquiry, to conduct a
full investigation.
The Committee of Investigation, meeting in closed
sessions, will review all materials, question relevant
parties, and allow for all parties to present their
views separately (without the presence of the other
parties) to the committee.
The Committee of Investigation will prepare,
within 90 calendar days, a report indicating whether
ethics violations have occurred; the report may include estimation of one or more of the following:
• the scope of the intentional dishonesty perpetrated by the accused
• the degree of gain that might accrue to the
accused because of the unethical behavior
• the seriousness of harm intentionally perpetrated against other individuals
The estimation shall be used in determining disciplinary action against the accused. In less serious
cases, action may include a verbal reprimand or,
if conditions warrant, a letter in the offender’s
personal file. In more serious cases, action might
include such sanctions as additional supervision of
research activity, loss of merit pay, or recommendation against promotion. In only the most serious
cases should dismissal be considered.
33
The report will be submitted to the vice president
for research and the Faculty Senate president, who
will forward the report to the provost.
The provost will review the report and render a
decision within 15 calendar days. Any recommendation that may constitute disciplinary action
against a faculty member will be referred by the
provost to the appropriate dean or other administrator as determined by the provost. The dean or
administrator will decide the appropriate action
within 15 calendar days.
If disciplinary action taken against a faculty member
constitutes a grievable action under either Faculty
Grievance Procedure I or Faculty Grievance Procedure II, the faculty member may file a grievance
in accordance with the appropriate procedure.
Disciplinary action against other individuals associated with the University are subject to applicable
grievance procedures.
D. Guiding Principles: Maximize confidentiality
and protect the reputations for both the accused
and accuser during the full process.
Assure the respondent a fair hearing and access
to reports.
Minimize the number of individuals involved in
the inquiry and investigation phases.
Individuals chosen to assist in the inquiry process
should have no real or apparent conflicts of interest bearing on the case in question. They should
be unbiased and have appropriate background for
judging the issues being raised.
Consultation of University legal counsel is probably necessary.
Appropriate funding agencies should be fully informed in writing at both the outset and conclusion
of an investigation.
All detailed documentation of the committees of
Inquiry and Investigation shall be maintained by
the Office of the Vice President for Research for
at least three (3) years and must, upon request, be
provided to authorized personnel.
Appropriate interim administrative actions will
be taken by the vice president for research at the
outset of the inquiry stage to protect supporting
funds and to ensure that the purposes of the project
are being met.
Executive Interpretation
Definitions
II.B. The Research Ethics Policy clearly restricts action to matters of research ethics; it does not address
such things as simple ineptitude, nonfraudulent
breach of contract or malpractice covered by existing policy. (See exclusions under section II.)
Note the following:
The definition includes malicious and public (suggesting that neither maliciousness nor publicness,
alone, is sufficient) misuse of the research ethics
policy itself (reference section II.E.).
Exploitation of others includes misuse of colleagues,
such as intentional and malicious failure to credit
the work of another, deliberately misleading other
individuals to obtain research goals, etc. It does
Policies
not include benign activity that seems to, or may
actually, exploit.
This policy should not be construed to include any
activity that is benign in intent (not malicious,
deliberately misleading, etc.).
II.E. It is the responsibility of University faculty
to protect its research integrity by condemning
unethical research activity, by investigating credible
charges of unethical research brought against the
faculty’s peers, by taking steps to restore the reputations of peers that are charged unjustly or in error,
by assessing the damage done by an unethical peer
if appropriate (See section III.C.), and by seeking
sanction through University administrative authorities against those who violate ethical research
practices. Appropriate administrative personnel
alone have the authority to deprive one of property
or liberty interests (within legal constraints). Consequently we feel that the assessment and pursuit
of sanctions against an individual should not be a
matter addressed by this policy.
III.A. Charges which do not fall within the
purview of this policy (See section II.B.) should
not be forwarded to a Committee of Inquiry. The
processes of Inquiry and Investigation threaten an
academician’s most cherished professional possession—his/her reputation. That reputation should
not be threatened without clear cause, thus charges
that do not involve “Research Ethics” as defined
by this document should be pursued through other
channels. For these reasons, the president of the
Faculty Senate and the chair of the Faculty Senate
Research Committee, upon receipt of the charges,
should confirm that the charges comply in substance
with this policy’s definitions before any action is
initiated. This is not to say that the president of the
Faculty Senate and the chair of the Faculty Senate
Research Committee should judge the legitimacy
of the charges or the facts of the case.
Because the vice president for research has an overall view of University policy and activities that may
be valuable at this stage of the process, the president
of the Faculty Senate and the chair of the Faculty
Senate Research Committee, at their discretion,
may consult with the vice president for research
prior to rendering a decision about whether the
charges should go forward under this policy.
It is in the interest of the accused and the University to provide an opportunity to the accused to
abbreviate the procedures outlined in this policy.
Specifically, the accused need not be subjected to
the trauma of a peer investigation if indeed he/she
would prefer to admit guilt and be subjected to appropriate administrative sanction.
III.B. A Committee of Inquiry is responsible for
determining whether the facts in the case are contentious (sufficient uncertainty exists to prevent
a determination of innocence without extensive
investigation) or that there is a probability that the
accused’s position is or is not credible.
A driving concern of the Committee of Inquiry is
the protection of all involved and particularly that
of the accused. Toward this end, a Committee of
Inquiry should balance the need for information
upon which to make a decision against the need
for confidentiality, with the balance in favor of
confidentiality. The merit of charges cannot always
be made on the strength of charges alone; thus, to
adequately protect the accused against a potentially
damaging investigation, the committee may need
to expand its inquiry beyond the charges and accompanying documentation. At the same time, it
must be realized that the likelihood of trauma and
damage to reputation increases as the scope of an
inquiry grows. The pertinent question is, how far
should a Committee of Inquiry go to protect an
unjustly charged individual against a more extensive
investigation given the need to limit the scope of
knowledge about the charges? The answer is that the
Committee of Inquiry should limit its efforts to the
minimum needed to establish that the facts in the
case are contentious or that there is a probability that
the accused’s position is or is not credible. Certainly
the accused should have the opportunity to respond
to the charges before the Committee of Inquiry.
ENGLISH FLUENCY
The Committee of Inquiry may need to seek
clarification from the accuser and may even need
to resolve doubts by seeking evidence from another
source. At all times, however, the Committee of
Inquiry should seek to confine the extent of knowledge about the charges leveled and, consequently,
should cease its inquiry as soon as it can conclude
that the charges may or may not be grounded (not
that the charges are or are not true). Strategies may
include strictly limiting the number of individuals
approached about the matter, limiting witnesses to
individuals who have prior knowledge of the charges
or soliciting documentation from involved parties.
The procedure is summarized as follows:
In addition to determining probability of ethics
violation, the Committee of Inquiry should clarify
the charges brought against the accused. This involves throwing out charges that are frivolous or
ungrounded and identifying those charges that
may be grounded.
A subsequent Committee of Investigation, because
its investigation is more thorough, need not, of
necessity, be bound to the scope defined by the
Committee of Inquiry but should give credence to
its recommendations.
III.C. The Committee of Investigation is responsible
for determining whether an ethics violation has
occurred relative to the situation addressed by the
charges. Such violation need not be limited to the
specific charges, but should be related to the incidents addressed by those charges. The person who
brings charges may be aware of only some of the ethical violations associated with a given incident; thus,
an investigation needs the freedom to note problems
relative to that incident which it may uncover during the course of investigating the charges.
The Committee of Investigation, like its predecessor, is concerned with protecting the integrity of
the parties involved. Consequently, it too should
balance the need for information upon which to
make a decision against the need for confidentiality. In this case, however, the balance should favor
the gathering of information. It is more important
that this committee be correct in its decision than
it is to limit the scope of knowledge about the
investigation. The committee should, of course,
cease operation when it has enough information
to make a just decision, but should not jeopardize
justice in the name of confidentiality.
34
Clemson University has established a policy to assure that all instructional activities are conducted
by individuals possessing appropriate proficiency
in written and oral use of the English language. Instructional activities include lectures, recitation or
discussion sessions, and laboratories. The individuals to be certified include full-time and part-time
faculty, graduate teachers of record, graduate teaching assistants, and graduate laboratory assistants for
whom English is not the first language.
A student who experiences difficulty with an instructor’s written or oral English and who wishes to
seek relief must do so prior to the seventh meeting
of a 50-minute class and prior to the fifth meeting
of a 90-minute class in regular semesters. In the
five-week summer sessions, relief must be sought
prior to the third class meeting.
a. The student must quickly bring the problem to
the attention of the instructor’s department chair
either directly or through a faculty member such as
the student’s advisor. That department chair will
assess the complaint and, if deemed valid, offer an
appropriate remedy within two days.
b. A student who is not satisfied with the department chair’s decision or the relief suggested, may
appeal within two days to a five-member hearing
panel comprised of three faculty members and two
students appointed by the Senior Vice Provost and
Dean of Undergraduate Studies.
Students with questions should contact the Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies, E-103
Martin Hall.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Clemson University, in compliance with Titles
VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, Title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972, and Sections 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, does not discriminate on the basis
of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or disability in any of its policies, procedures, or practices;
nor does the University, in compliance with the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,
as amended, and Section 402 of the Vietnam Era
Veterans Readjustment Act of 1974, discriminate
against any employees or applicants for employment
on the basis of their age or because they are disabled
veterans or veterans of the Vietnam era. Clemson
University conducts its programs and activities
involving admission, access, treatment, employment, teaching, research, and public service in a
nondiscriminatory manner as prescribed by Federal
laws and regulations.
In conformance with University policy and pursuant to Executive Order 11246, as amended, Section
503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Section
402 of the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Act
of 1974, Clemson University is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer.
Policies
Inquiries concerning the above may be addressed
to the following:
Executive Secretary, Clemson University Board
of Trustees, 201 Sikes Hall, Clemson University,
Clemson SC 29634
Director, Office for Access and Equity, 207 Holtzendorff, Clemson University, Clemson SC 29634
Director, Office for Civil Rights, Department of
Education, Washington DC 20201.
FAMILY EDUCATIONAL
RIGHTS AND PRIVACY
ACT
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
of 1974 (FERPA) affords eligible students certain
rights with respect to their education records. They
are as follows:
1. The right to inspect and review the student’s
education records (provided the student has not
waived this right) within 45 days of the day the
University receives a request for access.
Students should submit to the registrar, dean, head
of the academic department, or other appropriate
official, a written request identifying the record(s)
they wish to inspect.
The University official will make arrangements for
access and notify the student of the time and place
where the records may be inspected. If the records
are not maintained by the University official to
whom the request was submitted, that official shall
advise the student of the correct official to whom
the request should be addressed.
2. The right to request the amendment of the
student’s education records that the student believes
are inaccurate or misleading.
Students may ask the University to amend a record
that they believe is inaccurate or misleading. To
challenge the accuracy of an education record, the
student should write to the registrar or other University official responsible for the record and clearly
identify the part of the record he/she wants changed
and specify why it is inaccurate or misleading. If the
University official decides not to amend the record
as requested by the student, the University official
will notify his/her vice president. The vice president
will then notify the student of his/her right to a
hearing regarding the request for an amendment.
Additional information regarding the hearing
procedures will be provided to the student when
notified of his/her right to a hearing.
Note: The challenge of a student under this
paragraph is limited to information which relates
directly to the student and which the student asserts is inaccurate or misleading. With regard to
a student’s grade, this right does not permit the
student to contest a grade on the grounds that a
higher grade is deserved, but only to show that the
grade has been inaccurately recorded.
One exception which permits disclosure without
consent is disclosure to school officials with legitimate educational interest. A school official is
a person employed by the University; a person or
company with whom the University has contracted
(such as an attorney, auditor, or collection agent);
a person serving on the board of trustees; or a
student serving on an official committee, such as
a disciplinary or grievance committee, or assisting
another University official in performing his/her
tasks. A school official has a legitimate educational
interest if the official needs to review an education record in order to fulfill his/her professional
responsibilities.
Upon request, the University discloses education records without consent to officials of another school
in which a student seeks or intends to enroll.
4. The right to refuse to permit the designation of
any or all of the following categories of personallyidentifiable information as directory information,
which is not subject to the above restrictions on
disclosure: student’s full name, home address and
telephone number, campus address and telephone
number, campus e-mail address, state of residence,
date and place of birth, marital status, academic
class, class schedule and class roster, name of advisor, major field of study, including the college, division, department, or program in which the student
is enrolled, participation in officially recognized activities and sports, weight and height of members of
athletic teams, dates of attendance and graduation,
degrees and honors and awards received including
selection to a dean’s list or honorary organization
and the grade-point average of students selected,
and the most previous educational institution attended. Photographic, video, or electronic images
of students taken and maintained by the University
are also considered directory information.
Directory information may be disclosed by the
University for any purpose, at its discretion. Any
student wishing to exercise his/her right to refuse
to permit the designation of any or all of the above
categories as directory information must give written notification to the Registration Services Office
(E-206 Martin Hall) by the last day to register for
the enrollment period concerned as published in
the Clemson University calendar.
5. The right to file a complaint with the U.S.
Department of Education concerning alleged
failures by Clemson University to comply with the
requirements of FERPA. The name and address of
the office that administers FERPA is Family Policy
Compliance Office, U.S. Department of Education, 600 Independence Ave. SW, Washington
DC 20202-4605.
3. The right to consent to the disclosure of personally-identifiable information contained in the student’s education records, except to the extent that
FERPA authorizes disclosure without consent.
35
FAMILY PERSONAL
PRIVACY ACT
The South Carolina Family Personal Privacy
Act (SC Code 30-2-10 et. seq.) defines personal
information as “…information that identifies or
describes an individual including, but not limited
to, an individual’s photograph or digitized image,
social security number, date of birth, driver’s identification number, name, home address, home telephone number, medical or disability information,
education level, financial status, bank account(s)
number(s), account or identification number issued
by and/or used by any federal or state governmental
agency or private financial institution, employment
history, height, weight, race, other physical details,
signature, biometric identifiers, and any credit
records or reports.”
Some of the information in documents which
students provide to Clemson University may be
personal information as defined above. Pursuant to
Section 30-2-40 B, students are advised that this
information may be subject to public scrutiny or
release. They are also advised that personally-identifiable information contained in these educational
records falls under the federal Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (FERPA). If students elect to opt out of the release of
directory information under FERPA, the University
will not release any personal information except as
otherwise required or authorized by law.
HARASSMENT
In general, harassment is unwelcome verbal or
physical contact, based upon race, color, religion,
sexual orientation, gender, national origin, age,
disability, status as a military veteran, or protected
activity (i.e., opposition to prohibited discrimination or participation in the statutory complaint
process), that unreasonably interferes with the
person’s work or educational performance or creates an intimidating or hostile work or educational
environment. Examples may include, but are not
limited to, epithets, slurs, jokes, or other verbal,
graphic, or physical contact.
The entire text of the University’s policy on harassment can be obtained from the Office of Access
and Equity, 207 Holtzendorff, (864) 656-3181 or
at virtual.clemson.edu/groups/access/.
INFORMATION
RESOURCES FOR
STUDENTS
Clemson University computing resources are the
property of Clemson University, to be used for
University-related business. Students have no
expectation of privacy when utilizing University
computing resources, even if the use is for personal purposes. The University reserves the right
to inspect, without notice, the contents of computer files, regardless of medium, the contents of
electronic mailboxes, and computer conferencing
systems, systems output, such as printouts, and to
monitor network communication when
Policies
1. it is considered reasonably necessary to maintain
or protect the integrity, security, or functionality of
University or other computer resources or to protect
the University from liability;
2. there is reasonable cause to believe that the users have violated this policy or otherwise misused
computing resources;
3. an account appears to be engaged in unusual or
unusually excessive activity;
4. it is otherwise required or permitted by law.
Use of University computing resources, including
network facilities, account numbers, data storage
media, printers, plotters, microcomputer systems,
and software for computing activities other than
those authorized by the University is strictly prohibited. Unauthorized use of such resources is regarded
as a criminal act in the nature of theft, and violators
are subject to suspension, expulsion, and civil and
criminal prosecution.
The following are examples of misuse of computing resources:
1. unauthorized duplication, distribution, or alteration of any licensed software. This includes software
licensed by the University and licensed software
accessed using the computing networks;
2. attempting to gain unauthorized access to any
computing resource or data, at Clemson or anywhere
on the Internet, or attempting to disrupt the normal
operation of any computing resource or network;
3. attempting to use another student’s or employee’s
computer account or data without their permission;
4. using the University electronic mail system to
attack other computer systems, falsify the identity
of the source of electronic mail messages; sending
harassing, obscene, or other threatening electronic
mail; attempting to read, delete, copy, or modify the
electronic mail of others without their authorization; sending, without official University authorization, “for-profit” messages, chain letters, or other
unsolicited “junk” mail;
5. knowingly infecting any computing resource with
a software virus;
6. tampering with the University computer network or building wiring or installing any type of
electronic equipment or software that could be
used to capture or change information intended
for someone else;
7. participating in a “denial of service” attack on any
other computer, whether on or off campus;
8. using University computing or network resources
for personal gain or illegal activities such as theft,
fraud, copyright infringement, sound or video recording piracy, or distribution of child pornography
or obscenities.
Any suspected violations of this policy or any other
misuse of computer resources by students should
be referred to the Office of Student Conduct. That
office will investigate the allegations and take appropriate disciplinary action. Violations of law related
to misuse of computing resources may be referred to
the appropriate law enforcement agency.
Notwithstanding the above, Clemson Computing and Information Technology may temporarily
suspend, block, or restrict access to an account,
independent of University disciplinary procedures,
when it appears reasonably necessary to do so in
order to protect the integrity, security, or functionality of University or other computer resources, to
protect the University from liability, or where the
emotional or physical well-being of any person is
immediately threatened. When CCIT unilaterally
takes such action, it will immediately notify the account holder of its actions and the reason therefore
in writing. The account holder may appeal the action taken by CCIT in writing to the Vice Provost
for Computing and Information Technology.
Access will be restored to the account holder
whenever the appropriate investigatory unit of the
University determines that the protection of the
integrity, security, or functionality of University or
other computing resources has been restored and the
safety and well being of all individuals can reasonably be assured, unless access is to remain suspended
as a result of formal disciplinary action imposed
through the Office of Student Conduct.
PATENTS AND
COPYRIGHTS
All students enrolling in Clemson University do so
with full understanding that
1. The University has full ownership rights in any
inventions, discoveries, developments, and/or
improvements, whether or not patentable (inventions), which are conceived, developed, or reduced
to practice or caused to be conceived, developed, or
reduced to practice by graduate students during the
course of their research activities conducted as part
of any Graduate School curriculum. Any such invention will be handled by the University in the same
manner as set forth in the Faculty Manual of Clemson
University, the pertinent provision for which appears
as Part IXB entitled “Patent Policy.”
2. Copyright ownership of any research work will
be determined by University policy and by policies of organizations responsible for publishing or
distributing copyrighted material.
3. The initial right of students in copyright of ownership is subject to interests retained by Clemson
University. The rights retained by Clemson University may be subject to interests of third parties.
Copies of the policies on patents and copyrights are
available in the individual departments and colleges
and in the Graduate School Office.
REVOCATION OF
ACADEMIC DEGREES
Preamble
Academic institutions have a critical responsibility
to provide an environment that promotes integrity,
while at the same time encouraging openness and
creativity among scholars. Care must be taken to
ensure that honest error and ambiguities of interpretation of scholarly activities are distinguishable from
outright misconduct. This policy is applicable to
fraudulent or other misconduct in obtaining an aca-
36
demic degree which is so egregious that a mechanism
for revoking an academic degree, either graduate or
undergraduate, must be undertaken. The Clemson
University Board of Trustees has the sole authority
to revoke any degree previously awarded.
Definitions
As used herein, the following terms shall apply:
A. When the degree holder was an undergraduate
student:
1. “Dean” shall mean the dean of the academic
college where student was enrolled.
2. “Committee of Investigation and Recommendation” shall be composed of the members of the
standing University undergraduate Continuing
Enrollment Appeals Committee. An undergraduate student will be appointed to the Committee of
Investigation and Recommendation by the President of the Student Body within ten (10) calendar
days of notification by the President of the Faculty
Senate. Any member of the Continuing Enrollment
Appeals Committee who is a faculty member in the
department which awarded the degree involved
shall not be a member of the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation for that particular
investigation. If there are fewer than three (3)
non-disqualified faculty members, the President of
the Faculty Senate shall appoint additional faculty
members to bring the number of faculty committee
members up to three.
3. If the President of the Faculty Senate is from the
same department that awarded the degree involved,
the President-Elect of the Faculty Senate shall appoint the additional member.
B. When the degree holder was a graduate student:
1. “Dean” shall mean the Dean of the Graduate
School.
2. “Committee of Investigation and Recommendation” shall be composed of the members of the
standing University Graduate Admissions and
Continuing Enrollment Appeals Committee, except for the Associate Dean of the Graduate School
who shall not be a member of the Committee of
Investigation and Recommendation. A graduate
student will be appointed to the Committee of Investigations and Recommendation by the President
of Graduate Student Government within ten (10)
calendar days of notification by the President of
the Faculty Senate. Any member of the Graduate
Admissions and Continuing Enrollment Appeals
Committee who is a faculty member in the department which awarded the degree involved shall not
be a member of the Committee of Investigation and
Recommendation for that particular investigation.
If there are fewer than three (3) non-disqualified
faculty members, the President of the Faculty Senate shall appoint additional faculty members to
bring the number of faculty committee members up
to three (3). If the President of the Faculty Senate is
from the same department that awarded the degree
involved, the President-Elect of the Faculty Senate
shall appoint the additional member.
Complaint
An allegation or complaint involving the possibility
of misconduct can be raised by anyone. The allegation should be made in writing to the dean.
Policies
Initial Review
The Dean will conduct the initial review to determine whether or not the allegation has merit.
The Dean may discuss the matter with the former
student’s advisory committee (if any) and other
faculty as appropriate. The Dean may also contact
persons outside the University who may be able to
provide factual information on the alleged misconduct or who may otherwise have expertise concerning issues involved in the alleged misconduct. If the
Dean determines that the allegation has no merit,
he/she will terminate the investigation. If the Dean
determines that serious academic misconduct is
suspected, the Dean will notify the President of the
Faculty Senate in writing in a confidential manner.
The Dean shall also notify the Vice President for
Academic Affairs and Provost of the charge but will
not discuss any details of the charge.
Committee of Inquiry
The President of the Faculty Senate shall, within
ten calendar days of receipt of the notification from
the dean, appoint three (3) faculty members to the
Committee of Inquiry and notify the President of
Graduate Student Government or the President of
the Student Body, as appropriate, who shall appoint
a graduate or undergraduate student, as appropriate, to the Committee of Inquiry within ten (10)
calendar days of notification. The President of the
Faculty Senate shall also notify the degree holder of
the formation of a Committee of Inquiry.
If the Faculty Senate President is from the same
department that awarded the degree involved, the
President-Elect of the Faculty Senate shall appoint
the Committee of Inquiry. The faculty members
will be appointed from departments which did not
award the degree involved. The Committee will
elect its chairman from the faculty members on
the Committee.
For each allegation, the Committee of Inquiry will
review the complaint and any other information
provided by the dean and determine whether there
is sufficient evidence to warrant a formal charge
of academic misconduct and further investigation
under this policy. While the Committee of Inquiry
shall not make a recommendation as to whether a
degree should be revoked, the purpose is to provide a
review to separate frivolous, unjustified, or mistaken
allegations from those requiring a more detailed and
formal investigation. The Committee of Inquiry
will review the evidence and must determine that
the alleged misconduct more probably than not
occurred in order for the committee to recommend
a formal charge and further investigation.
Within thirty (30) calendar days of the formation of
the Committee of Inquiry, the Committee of Inquiry
will submit a written report to the President of the
Faculty Senate. If the Committee of Inquiry’s report
finds that the investigation should not proceed, the
President of the Faculty Senate shall terminate the
investigation and notify the appropriate persons. If
the Committee of Inquiry’s report finds that a formal
charge and further investigation are warranted, the
President of the Faculty Senate shall, within ten
(10) calendar days of receipt of the report of the
Committee of Inquiry, send a copy of that report to
the Dean and to the Committee of Investigation
and Recommendation. The President of the Faculty
Senate shall also immediately notify the President
of Graduate Student Government or President of
the Student Body (whichever is appropriate) that a
student representative needs to be appointed to the
Committee of Investigation and Recommendation.
The President of the Faculty Senate shall also notify
the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
of the Committee of Inquiry’s recommendation.
No details of the charge will be discussed. Note: A
majority vote of the Committee of Inquiry is necessary to recommend that a formal charge and further
investigation are warranted. A tie vote means that
the investigation is terminated as stated herein.
Notification to Degree Holder
The Dean shall issue in writing, within ten (10)
calendar days of receipt of the report of the Committee of Inquiry, a formal charge of academic misconduct to the degree holder. This written notice
shall detail the factual allegations for the charge and
the evidence supporting the charge. This written
notice shall also inform the degree holder that if
the charges are substantiated, the degree holder’s
degree could be revoked. This written notice shall
also inform the degree holder of his/her right to appear at a hearing as stated in this policy. The Dean
shall also send with this notice a copy of this Policy
and Procedure on Revocation of Academic Degrees
to the degree holder. This notice shall be delivered
to the accused in person or sent by certified mail,
return receipt requested.
Committee of Investigation and
Recommendation
The Committee of Investigation and Recommendation shall extend to the degree holder due process
which shall, at a minimum, include the following:
1. notice of the nature of the complaint;
2. notice of the evidence supporting the complaint;
3. notice of the hearing;
4. the opportunity to present evidence, including testimony;
5. the opportunity to hear the testimony against
the degree holder;
6. the opportunity to ask questions of all witnesses;
7. the opportunity to have an attorney or advisor present at the hearing; however, the role of the
attorney or advisor shall be solely to assist the party,
and the attorney or advisor shall not be permitted
to participate actively in the proceedings.
The degree holder shall not be entitled to know
the identity of the person(s) who originally made
the complaint unless that person agrees that his/her
identity can be revealed.
The chair of the Committee of Investigation and
Recommendation shall inform the degree holder of
the time and date of the hearing.
The Dean or his/her designee shall present the
accusation against the degree holder at the hearing and may have one additional representative
present during the hearing. Under this section the
term “Dean” is understood to include the Dean’s
designee, if such a designation is made.
The degree holder and the Dean may submit written materials to the Committee of Investigation
and Recommendation prior to the hearing. The
chair of the Committee of Investigation and Rec-
37
ommendation shall make available the materials
received to the other party and to all committee
members. The hearing before the Committee of
Investigation and Recommendation shall be held
no sooner than thirty (30) calendar days and no
later than ninety (90) calendar days after receipt
of the report of the Committee of Inquiry unless
the degree holder and the Dean agree to a different
date. All matters pertaining to the hearing shall
be kept as confidential as possible and the hearing
shall be closed to the public. A verbatim record of
the hearing will be taken and a type-written copy
thereof transcribed and made a part of the hearing
record. The degree holder and the Dean shall be
responsible for having any witnesses they wish to
testify in attendance at the hearing. Witnesses will
be present only while testifying.
The chair of the Committee of Investigation and
Recommendation shall take whatever action is
necessary during the hearing to ensure a fair, orderly, and expeditious hearing. No formal rules of
evidence will be followed. If any objection is made
to any evidence being offered, the decision of the
majority of the committee shall govern. Irrelevant,
immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence shall
be excluded.
The degree holder and the Dean shall be permitted to offer evidence and witnesses pertinent to
the issues.
The Dean shall present the case against the accused first. The accused shall then present his/her
response.
The chair will allow each party to ask questions
of the other party and will allow each party to ask
questions of the other party’s witnesses at the appropriate time during the hearing as determined
by the chair. Members of the committee may ask
questions of any party or any witness at any time
during the hearing.
Within fifteen (15) calendar days of the conclusion
of the hearing, the Committee of Investigation and
Recommendation shall submit a written report to
the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost. The report shall contain findings and a recommendation as to whether the degree holder’s degree
should be revoked. The Committee of Investigation
and Recommendation must find clear and convincing evidence that serious academic misconduct has
been committed in order to recommend the revocation of the degree holder’s degree. If the Committee
of Investigation and Recommendation does not find
clear and convincing evidence of serious academic
misconduct, the Committee of Investigation and
Recommendation cannot recommend revocation
of the degree holder’s degree and the matter shall
be closed. Note: A majority vote of the Committee
of Investigation and Recommendation is necessary
to recommend the revocation of a degree holder’s
degree. This means that a tie vote will result in the
matter being closed.
At the same time that the report is sent to the
Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost,
the chair of the Committee of Investigation and
Recommendation shall send a copy of the report to
the degree holder, the Dean, and other appropriate
persons involved in the process.
Policies
If the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation recommends that the degree holder’s degree
be revoked, the chair shall also send a complete
copy of the hearing record to the Vice President for
Academic Affairs and Provost. The hearing record
shall consist of the transcript of the hearing and all
documents that were submitted to the committee.
The chair of the Committee of Investigation and
Recommendation shall label which documents
were submitted by each party when forwarding this
information to the Vice President for Academic
Affairs and Provost.
If the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation recommends that the degree holder’s degree
be revoked, the chair shall also send a copy of the
transcript of the hearing to the degree holder and
the Dean at the same time that it is sent to the Vice
President for Academic Affairs and Provost.
Vice President for Academic Affairs and
Provost
If the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation recommends that the degree be revoked, the
Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
shall review the hearing record and the report of
the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation. If the Vice President for Academic Affairs
and Provost decides that the degree holder’s degree
should not be revoked, he/she shall notify the degree holder, the Dean, the Committee of Investigation and Recommendation, and other appropriate
persons involved in the process, in writing, within
twenty-one (21) calendar days of receipt of the
transcript of the hearing; and the matter shall be
closed. If the Vice President for Academic Affairs
and Provost decides to recommend that the degree
holder’s degree should be revoked, the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost shall send
that recommendation in writing to the President
of the University within twenty-one (21) calendar
days of receipt of the transcript of the hearing. The
Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
shall send to the President, along with his/her recommendation, the Committee of Investigation and
Recommendation’s report and the hearing record.
The Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost shall send a copy of his/her recommendation
to the degree holder, the Dean, the Committee of
Investigation and Recommendation, and other appropriate persons involved in the process.
and the hearing record and forward his recommendation to the Executive Secretary of the Board of
Trustees within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the recommendation of the Vice President for
Academic Affairs and Provost.
Board of Trustees
The Executive Secretary of the Board of Trustees
shall send to all trustees the hearing record, the recommendation of the Vice President for Academic
Affairs and Provost, the report of the Committee
of Investigation and Recommendation, and the
recommendation of the President, if any. A majority
vote by the Board of Trustees, at a duly constituted
Board meeting, is required to revoke an academic
degree. The decision of the Board of Trustees shall
be final.
Guiding Principles
All actions taken by committees shall be effective
by a majority vote.
All investigations, hearings, and actions shall be
kept as confidential as possible except for notice of
any revocation approved by the Board of Trustees.
A decision not to proceed at any stage of the proceedings set forth in this policy does not necessarily
mean that the original complaint was groundless.
For good cause shown, at the request of either party
and the approval of the other, the Vice President
for Academic Affairs and Provost shall extend any
time limit set forth in this policy. Any such time
extension shall be communicated in writing to all
appropriate parties.
Administrative Action if Degree is Revoked
If a degree is revoked by the Board of Trustees, the
former student’s transcript will be modified to reflect
that the degree was revoked, and the former student
will be informed of the revocation and requested to
return the diploma. If the former student was enrolled in a program requiring a thesis or dissertation,
all bound copies will be removed from the Clemson
University Library. In addition, for doctoral students, University Microfilms, Inc. will be notified
and requested to take appropriate action.
Students whose degrees have been revoked may
be eligible to reapply for admission according to
normal University procedures and policies in effect
at the time of reapplication.
If the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost is disqualified from reviewing the case, the Dean
of Undergraduate Studies shall be substituted for the
Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost.
President
If the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost recommends to the President that the degree
holder’s degree should be revoked, the President
shall transmit that recommendation along with
the report of the Committee of Investigation and
Recommendation and the hearing record to the
Executive Secretary of the Board of Trustees within
thirty (30) calendar days of receipt. If the President
wishes to make a recommendation, he/she shall
review the recommendation of the Vice President
for Academic Affairs and Provost, the report of the
Committee of Investigation and Recommendation,
38